A legislator from Loveland has denied allegations made against him by a fellow Republican in his response to an ethics committee looking into the claims.

In his Feb. 6 response, Rep. Ron Weinberg said the complaint “appears (to be) politically motivated and timed to coincide with my pursuit of a leadership position.”

“It is filled with unverified accusations, inconsistencies, and demonstrably false claims. I take my role as a State Representative seriously and have always conducted myself in accordance with House Rules, Colorado law, and standards of professional conduct,” Weinberg said.

Rep. Brandi Bradley’s complaint against Weinberg was filed with the House last July, though the ethics committee wasn’t convened to hear it until Feb. 2.

In her complaint, Bradley pointed to campaign finance allegations, which are also part of a separate complaint filed with the Secretary of State. That complaint will be heard by an administrative law judge on Feb. 27.

Responding to the campaign finance allegations, Weinberg said he is fully cooperating and is awaiting “further instructions.”

Weinberg attached to his response letters from his wife, Carolyn, who is also his legislative aide, as well as former aides and other witnesses to some of the incidents described in the complaint.

One of those incidents is a dinner on the last night of the 2025 session at the Brown Palace, in which Bradley alleged Weinberg interrupted a story being told by Rep. Rebecca Keltie, R-Colorado Springs, with a crude, sexually suggestive remark, then went on to make additional inappropriate comments of a sexual nature directed at Keltie and Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-Fort Mogan, suggesting they needed to stop being celibate.

Carolyn Weinberg, along with a campaign volunteer, Rep. Carlos Barron, R-Fort Lupton, and Rep. Larry Suckla, R-Cortez, all submitted letters, stating they were at the event in question and did not hear Weinberg make the remarks alleged by Bradley.

Weinberg wrote in his response that Keltie would confirm his account of the evening.

In other incidents, such as a heated exchange between Luck and Weinberg at a House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee hearing during the 2025 session, Weinberg denied he was belligerent with Luck, explaining Luck had been asking him “a series of aggressive and pointed questions.”

“Her tone and approach were combative to the point where I felt personally attacked and unable to properly respond. It wasn’t a matter of debate or disagreement — it was an effort to undermine and discredit,” he said, adding the matter was related to a personality conflict between the two.

The House Ethics Committee met on Thursday morning to continue its work on the allegations. On this specific incident, members indicated they did not think it rose to the level of an ethical lapse.

Rep. Javier Mabry, D-Denver, noted people do get emotional in committee hearings. If it rises to the level of threats, that’s something else, he said.

He said he views confrontation as a big part of the job. It would be hard to discern that this could be something more than just a tough confrontation, he said.

“I don’t know that necessarily rises to the level of something we should consider,” he said.

Bradley also alleged Weinberg claimed he carried a gun to the Capitol, accused him of drinking alcohol and of using abusive language, including inappropriate or sexual comments.

Weinberg said his wife was present for the incidents in question and could refute those claims.

The ethics committee noted that, if true, some of the allegations could be covered under the legislature’s workplace harassment or sexual harassment policies, which raises questions about the committee’s jurisdiction on parts of the complaint, given that there are other legislative panels that deal with those issues.

The Weinberg response also included a July 1 social media exchange between Bradley and Democratic activist Alan Franklin.

In that exchange, Franklin said Bradley would “pulp (Weinberg) like an orange,” and he’d pay to see it if it involved an actual whip. Bradley and Weinberg had been competing for the House Minority Whip position.

Bradley responded to Franklin, asking how much of a campaign contribution he’d make if she livestreamed it. Alan replied it would exceed campaign contribution limits.

The House Ethics Committee, while leaning toward dismissing some of the allegations as outside of their scope, made no decisions. It also did not discuss Weinberg’s response. The committee will meet again next week.